Balanced-Budget Amendment

Your editorial, “Balanced-Budget Plan: Looks, 10; Workability, 0” (Jan. 31), describes the balanced budget amendment as “irresponsible governance” and “fiscally reckless.” Actually, your description applies perfectly to our federal government’s budget policies of the past 35 years. Does anyone feel that a government that has accumulated a debt of some $4 trillion has been fiscally responsible?

The argument that the amendment will “straitjacket” the government in times of recession is false. The government can run a surplus in fat times in order to have extra money for lean times. The government would thus moderate inflation during expansionary years and stimulate the economy during recessionary years. In the present state, there is no evidence our government will ever gain the self-discipline needed to regulate itself in such a common-sense manner. We need the balanced-budget amendment now!

KIM M. BISHOP

Glendale

* You agree with President Clinton’s claim that the constitutional amendment would be a “straitjacket” in case of an economic or fiscal crisis, because three-fifths (60%) of the House and of the Senate would be required to vote to approve a suspension of the balanced budget. There is no true crisis if you cannot reach a 10% majority in both houses.

It has been estimated that we are paying $1 billion interest per day on the national debt. How much better to have it for job training, health, child care, infrastructure and the many other things needed to make a better life for our families. There is a chance that the legal requirement for a balanced budget would give Congress the political shield it needs to make the unpopular decisions required to put our financial house in order.

BERNARD P. FAAS

Torrance